Do you believe schools should be prevented from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution?
Yeah. The government has no business funding religious education. The only reason to teach intelligent design is evolution. Teaching intelligent design also reduces the amount of time that can be spent on other subjects.
>>58834235
While they're at it, why don't they actually practice that desperation of church and state the founding father made a big deal of maintaining and remove "under God" from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from the dollar.
It is very wrong
school is not a religious school, secularism should not be mixed into a seminary
>>58834184
No, any kind of education of any kind of religious institution should be banned.
Including Creationism, Morality, Law, and Human Rights
>>58834235
This. In addition, religious schools such as Catholic schools should be shut down in order to provide an equal education for all students without unnecessary and inaccurate religious bias.
>>58834184
No. The government should dictate what should be taught. And if those requirements are met schools can do whatever the fuck they like.
>>58834928
Let's just ban churches and religion altogether.
No, because the universe was created by a creator who intended for humans to come into existance.
>>58834900
>implying those things dont, or didn't exist without religion
gtfo noob
>>58834928
Those schools operate with their own money. It's not the same. The only way they could be construed to using my tax dollars is that people get tax credits if they put their children in private schools instead of public ones iirc, but that's not directly giving money for religious education.
It's not even about religion, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's not a scientific anything, so it doesn't belong in a science class. Teach it in philosophy,I don't give a fuck. But it's not science.
>>58834979
Explain how human rights can exist without religion
>>58834235
Fuck, I just noticed I messed up. I meant the only religion to teach intelligent design is RELIGION.
>>58835057
This
>>58835057
ditto. philosophy and theology should be the only places where intelligent design should belong
>>58835064
If you think Christian morality was new or innovative when the bible was written you're just being silly. But not as silly as silly billy.
>>58835064
I hope this is satire.
>>58835144
It's not even philosophy, don't kid.
>>58835077
>the only religion to teach intelligent design is RELIGION.
You fucked up again, lad. But at least you got dubs.
>>58835159
I never made that claim, I never mentioned anything in regards to Christian morality in the first place. However, human rights don't exist without a higher power to provide them. You either conclude that they don't exist, or you believe that governments have enough authority to enforce them, which is equally flawed.
>tfw at least i'm not silly billy
>>58835197
sure man whatever you say
>>58834961
Doesnt work.
People need to be able to see and identify the bad ideas within, and learn from them as bad examples.
If you hide it from your kids, it's the best way to have them become uncritical zealots when they discover it later on.
>>58834184
What is 'intelligent design'?
>>58835112
>this
Oh, that? Thanks for making such a great point. Hey guess what? I already read it. Your post that is a total lack of a post adds nothing but pointless redundancy.
If you did that in conversation irl, someone would punch you in the mouth, and they'd be right to.
>>58835316
Human rights are merely a construction to force a certain morality upon the world.
And we only grant people those rights because we can afford to.
Funnily enough Christian countries, like Russia, Italy, the USA and Brazil are actually less likely to enforce human rights than atheist countries, like us.
Humans are social creatures. When they can afford to be social and that behavior is socially reinforced they will be.
>>58835426
Creationism, believing that some "god" created the universe, instead of gorious evolution.
>>58835462
In that regard humans are a bit like dogs. Who have no religion, yet behave friendly when they can and are taught to do so.
>>58835442
Yeah, this right here, what this guy said to that other guy who said "this". This is it.
>do you support teaching literally made up shit beside the underpinning of modern biology
>>58834775
I'm sure it will be removed soon along with George Washington.
>>58835304
Today just isn't my day.
>>58835463
Religious creationism, not a scientific one? I was taught that evolution is still a theory alongside with several others.
>>58835777
What other theory were you taught? Also the correct use of the word theory needs to be taught.
>>58835777
that's surprising
>>58835462
>Atheistic Countries
You mean like the Soviet Union?
Russia, Italy, USA, Brazil may have majority Christian populations, but that can hardly be representative of Christian values, since someone can easily claim to be Christian yet have no Christian values.
I've met very few Christians who claim to have any kind of special interest in Theology or anything beyond attending church on Sunday, despite Charity being at the core of Christianity.
>>58835777
Evolution is a theory supported by evidence. Mutations can be observed. Variations in animals throughout the ages can be observed.
Creationism is not impossible, but it is based on assumptions about the unknown without any supporting evidence. So despite that it might be a theory in the general sense of the word, it's not a scientific theory.
>>58834184
Depends on the class. In biology absolutely get rid of it. But in a philosophy or religion class, then no keep it.
>>58835969
It's not philosophy.
It only has a place in propping up a literal interpretation of one extremist faction of one religion.
>>58835900
You're right. That was a bad example of mine.
>>58835941
To add. You can also see a pattern in which creatures died off and which didn't.
>>58835846
I remember panspermia and hot water theory (deep sea or whatever it's called in English).
>Also the correct use of the word theory needs to be taught.
Are you implying a certain human evolution theory is proved already?
>>58835941
Evolution and the origin of life are completely different topics.
>in the general sense of the word, it's not a scientific theory
It is. Also life was created by a human several years ago. It was a completely original life form made from non-organic material. It can evolve.
